Learning and Technology Adoption:A Structural and Behavioral Analysis

Brent Zenobia Department of Engineering and Technology Management

Portland State Universitybcapps@hevanet.com

Charles WeberDepartment of Engineering and Technology Management

Portland State Universitywebercm@gmail.com

AbstractWhat is the relationship between learning and technology adoption? A case study of alternative transit mode choice suggests that adoption is a family of three learning processes which includes technology selection, evaluation, and maintenance. Structural and behavioral analysis is applied to uncover the properties, dimensions, and dynamic behavior of these processes. Technology evaluation and selection are cognitively distinct mental processes with different information requirements.

Adoption as a Learning Process

• Adoption is learning about toolsAdoption is learning about tools– Tool use sets us apart from most other primates

– Baboons live in social groups – but they don’t use tools,have language, or possess a ‘theory of mind’

– Social life drove the evolution of the primate brain toa certain point, then tool use took over and spurredtool use took over and spurredthe development of language.the development of language. This rewired the humanbrain in important ways (Cheney & Seyfarth, 2007)

– Thus, learning about tools is even more fundamental to human learning about tools is even more fundamental to human cognition than language.cognition than language.

• Adoption is also useful as a substantive domain to study learningAdoption is also useful as a substantive domain to study learning– Theories of learning that are difficult to test in organizational settings

may reveal themselves in high-involvement adoption situations

– Such studies will have the character of basic researchbasic research

The Current State of Adoption Theory

Theoretical progress has stagnatedTheoretical progress has stagnated“…the growth of appropriate theory is at an apparent standstill.” (Katz, 1999, pg. 145)

“…a kind of sameness...stereotyped approaches.” (Rogers, 2003, pg. 40)A reified concept without behavioral referents (Eveland, 1979, pg. 5)

Theoretical progress has stagnatedTheoretical progress has stagnated“…the growth of appropriate theory is at an apparent standstill.” (Katz, 1999, pg. 145)

“…a kind of sameness...stereotyped approaches.” (Rogers, 2003, pg. 40)A reified concept without behavioral referents (Eveland, 1979, pg. 5)

and yet, Rogers himself said this model is wrong. The supporting evidence is thin, the model is 50 years old, and the stages it predicts often occur out of order or else are skipped entirely. Rogers pleaded for decades for someone to apply qualitative process research methods (as opposed to surveys) to construct a better model of technology adoption. No causal, empirically derived theory of adoption yet exists.

The Rogers Adoption Model

By far the most widely cited adoption model…

OUTDA

TED

OUTDA

TED

Source: Rogers (2003)

Research Objective

• Why simulated consumer agents?• Because agent-based social simulation is the keyagent-based social simulation is the key

to reviving theoretical progressto reviving theoretical progress in adoption research– Forces parsimony and conceptual clarity

– Permits controlled experimentation

– Enables falsification of hypotheses & elimination of weak theory

To construct a theory of thetechnology adoption processtechnology adoption process

that is suitable for implementation in simulated consumer agents.

To construct a theory of thetechnology adoption processtechnology adoption process

that is suitable for implementation in simulated consumer agents.

Source: Goldspink (2002); Andrews, Baptista and Patton (2005)

Research Setting

Alternatives to single Alternatives to single occupancy vehicles:occupancy vehicles:

Bicycles

Buses

Light rail

Car sharing

Car pooling

The structuralstructural and behavioralbehavioral aspects of individual adoption are more easily brought out into the open

in high-involvement decision settings like commuting

The structuralstructural and behavioralbehavioral aspects of individual adoption are more easily brought out into the open

in high-involvement decision settings like commuting

Process has Structure and Behavior

Structure = key concepts & static relationships– Requires sampling a wide variety of outcomes– Therefore, outcomes must be known in advanceoutcomes must be known in advance – Retrospective data is needed

Behavior = patterns in the sequence of events– Requires watching the process as it unfolds– Therefore, outcomes cannot be known in advanceoutcomes cannot be known in advance – Longitudinal data is needed

Sources: Morse (1991); Morgan (1998); Van de Ven and Huber (1990); Leonard-Barton (1990)

Two-stage complementary assistance designCase 1: STRUCTURESTRUCTURE +

behavior

Case 2: structure + BEHAVIORBEHAVIOR

Two-stage complementary assistance designCase 1: STRUCTURESTRUCTURE +

behavior

Case 2: structure + BEHAVIORBEHAVIOR

Two-Case Design

Novice Winter Bike Commuters• Emphasis on behavioral behavioral analysis

(Miles and Huberman, 1994)• LongitudinalLongitudinal data collection• 28 interviews + other evidence

Outputs: Relationship diagrams; decision diagrams; sequence diagrams; UML modelOutputs: Relationship diagrams; decision diagrams; sequence diagrams; UML model

‘Passport Plus’ Transit Pass• Emphasis on structural structural analysis

(Strauss and Corbin, 1998)• RetrospectiveRetrospective data collection• 14 interviews + other evidence

Beliefs,judgements about cause and effect

Structural Findings

Motives,representations of inner mental states

Momors,MOtive-to-MOtive

Relations

Desires,pursued for

their own sake

Needs,pursued for the sake

of something else

Technologies,tools pertaining to motives

Temors,TEchnology-to-MOtive

Relations

influences

selection

A map of how A map of how technologiestechnologies

are linkedare linkedto motivesto motivesvia beliefsvia beliefs

Structural Findings

Motives,representations of inner mental states

Desires,pursued for

their own sake

Needs,pursued for the sake

of something else

Technologies,tools pertaining to motives

Beliefs,judgements about cause and effect

Momors,MOtive-to-MOtive

Relations

Temors,TEchnology-to-MOtive

Relations

influences

selection

……but HOW?but HOW?

Behavioral analysis is needed!Behavioral analysis is needed!

A map of how A map of how technologiestechnologies

are linkedare linkedto motivesto motivesvia beliefsvia beliefs……

Behavioral Findings I

Adoption is a set of three cognitive processeswith distinct information requirements.

SelectionSelection Which technology best suits my current needs?

UsesUses beliefs Simple behavior: runs until it terminates

EvaluationEvaluation How well does this technology suit my needs?

ChangesChanges beliefs Event-driven behavior: stimulus/response

MaintenanceMaintenance Is this technology ready to use?

Factual Event-driven behavior: stimulus/response

Behavioral Findings IIThe Selection Process (n = 75 episodes)

FrameSituational

Needs

ReframeSituational

Needs

ActionRequired

AssessOptionalNeeds

Closure

NoOptions

MultipleOptions

OneOption

Quit

Can’tQuit

Committo Option

Procrastinate

RecallTechnology

Option

ScreenOption

PromptingMotive

MakeTradeoff

SensitiveMotive

TakeAction

StatusQuo

GetInfo

GetHelp

Framing Stage Screening Stage Choice StageAdoption criteria:Adoption criteria:1. Timing

Adoption criteria:Adoption criteria:1. Timing

Motive Technology

Belief

A map of howA map of howindividuals chooseindividuals choose

technologiestechnologies

Relevant

Familiar

Mixed or NegativeMixed or Positive

First Use

Irrelevant

Unfamiliar

ActiveInterest

Disinterest

PassiveInterest

Initial Use

NegativeEvangelism

Regret Differentiation

Recognition

Mixed

Positive/ConsolidationNegative/Consolidation

Negative

PositiveNegative

Positiveor Mixed

Negativeor Mixed

Positive

PositiveNegativeor Mixed

Positive

Negative or Mixed

PositiveEvangelism

DominanceStructuring

Adoption criteria:Adoption criteria:2. Relevance

3. Familiarity

4. Value

Adoption criteria:Adoption criteria:2. Relevance

3. Familiarity

4. Value

Behavioral Findings IIIThe Evaluation Process (n = 151 episodes)

A map of howA map of howindividuals learnindividuals learn

about technologiesabout technologies

Motive Technology

Belief

Accessible

Inoperable OperableGainAccess[in Obtainable]

LoseAccess LoseOperation

GainOperation[in Obtainable]

GainOpportunity

LoseOpportunity

Inaccessible

Unobtainable Obtainable

• Gain access = buy, subscribe, renew, borrow.• Lose access = sell, unsubscribe, expire, discard.• Gain operation = repair, resupply.• Lose operation = break, consume.

Adoption criteria:Adoption criteria:5. Opportunity

6. Accessibility

7. Operability

Adoption criteria:Adoption criteria:5. Opportunity

6. Accessibility

7. Operability

Behavioral Findings IVThe Maintenance Process (n = 57 episodes)

A map of theA map of thecurrent usabilitycurrent usabilityof a technologyof a technology

Motive Technology

Belief

Behavioral Findings V

Operational linkage between selection & evaluation occurs through the mirror mechanisms of:

ConsolidationConsolidation of needs into an habitual set of options

– and –

DifferentationDifferentation of needs into a sensitized set of options

The Seven Criteria for Adoption

TimingTiming Is my need immediate or in the future?

RelevanceRelevance Is this technology relevant to my need?

FamiliarityFamiliarity Have I used this technology before?

ValueValue Is it positive, negative, mixed, or unknown?

OpportunityOpportunity Can I get this technology?

AccessibilityAccessibility Do I already have this technology?

OperabilityOperability Does this technology function?

During future research these criteria will provide the basisfor a survey instrument to measure the stage of adoption

During future research these criteria will provide the basisfor a survey instrument to measure the stage of adoption

Summary

Adoption is a set of three cognitive processes having distinct information requirements:

SelectionSelection

EvaluationEvaluation

MaintenanceMaintenance

Main Contributions

• Empirical findings

– Research has established an empirical link between technology adoption and basic cognitive processes.

– Selection and evaluation are cognitively distinct mental processes with different information requirements.

• The first empirically derived theory of adoption

– An explanatory theory – more than a model

– In the Whitehead tradition

– Explicitly decision-theoretic

Sources: Whitehead (1929)

Questions?

Bibliography

Andrews, C. J., Baptista, A. I., & Patton, S. (2005). Grounded theory and multi-agent simulation for a small firm. In T. Terano & H. Kita & T. Kaneda & K. Arai & H. Deguchi (Eds.), Agent-Based Simulation: From Modeling Methodologies to Real-World Applications. Tokyo: Springer-Verlag.

Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R., M. (2007). Baboon Metaphysics: The Evolution of a Social Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Eveland, J. D. (1979). Issues in using the concept of 'adoption of innovations'. Journal of Technology Transfer, 4(1), 1-13.

Goldspink, C. (2002). Methodological implications of complex systems approaches to sociality: Simulation as a foundation for knowledge. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5(1).

Katz, E. (1999). Theorizing diffusion: Tarde and Sorokin revisited. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566, 144-155.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929/1969). Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology (paperback ed.). New York: Free Press.

Photo credits: Bike Portland, Flexcar, Trimet, Toyota

Behavioral Modeling

Composite Sequence Analysis

• A method for identifying typical process sequencesand families of sequences (Miles and Huberman, 1994)

– Provided evidence for the agent’s activity diagrams and statechartsProvided evidence for the agent’s activity diagrams and statecharts

• What follows is a step-by-step illustration of behavioral analysis1. Interview→Transcript

2. Transcript→Chronology

3. Chronology→Decision Diagram (Langley, 1999)

4. Decision Diagram→Sequence Coding

5. Sequence Coding→Dataset

6. Dataset→Sequence Diagram

7. Sequence Diagram→UML Model

Interview→Transcript (optional)

B: How long have you been using TriMet?

#1: Oh, well…I moved back to Oregon after a number of years away, a long time, almost 20 years away, in 1998. I’ve been using TriMet since that time. I grew up with it…I think it was called Rose City Transit when I was small. My mom took me everywhere in Portland on Rose City Transit. I grew up with riding the bus. She’s from Germany, they always had decent mass transit. She didn’t know how to drive, so we were always on the bus somewhere.

[time mark 11:00]

B: If I were to ask you about some of the feelings or meanings that you have personally constructed around the bus or mass transit, could you describe some of those to me?

#1: I think it’s often very convenient. It’s often slower than if you park your car, but on the other end you don’t have to pay, you don’t have to look for a parking place or pay for it, so to me it comes out even - even though I can get downtown quicker from my house in my car than I can on TriMet. But then I might use my time hunting for a parking place. I usually enjoy it, it’s sort of like a little cultural experience. Sometimes I’m too tired to have the cultural experience, because you just never know what you’re going to get on the bus. Sometimes it’s like walking into a play.

TranscriptParagraph

032

033

035

036

034

Timeline Issue Category Paragraph

Childhood Rides Rose City Transit bus with mother Personal 33

1998Moves back to Portland after long absence; lives in area with limited walking options

Functional-Social-Personal

33, 76, 91

1998 Becomes caregiver for elderly mother Social-Personal 76

1998 Unable to find acceptable bus options for visiting mother Functional-Social 78, 80

2001? Working full time downtown Functional 63

Sept 2001 Hired as adjunct faculty for PSU and PCC Functional 13

2001-2006 Busy schedule; pressed for time Functional 82, 84, 89

2001-2006 Dissatisfied with cost of campus parking Functional 9, 17, 159

2001-2006 Parking hassles at PSU + PCC Functional 9, 17, 29, 159, 165

2001-2003 Bus use increasing; buys monthly pass Functional 21, 63, 65-66

2001-2006 Uses personal auto to drive to transit center (w/ trip chaining) Functional 21, 27

2001-2006 Combines Trimet with PCC shuttle bus Functional 31

2001-2006General satisfaction with Trimet, except for cost, availability, and accessibility issues

Functional36, 221, 227-229, 231, 235

2001-2006 Enjoys using bus ride for teaching prep, rest periods/napsFunctional-Personal

9, 13, 17, 217-219

2001-2006 Tired of driving, but thankful to have a car Functional 97, 249

Transcript→Chronology(or voicerecording

index)

Commuting between home, campus, downtown, mother• Increasing bus use; buys monthly pass• Utilizes shuttle bus to commute between campuses• Tries to reduce use of personal vehicle (trip chaining)• Occasional walking

Childhood Sept 2001 20031998

Rides Rose City transit with

mother

Commute tradeoff

Unable to find acceptable bus

options for visiting mother

(-)

Campus parking is expensive

Pressed for time

(--)

Caregiver for elderly mother

Moves back to Portland after long absence

Hired as adjunct

Parkinghassles at PSU

& PCC

Uses bus time for teaching prep

(--)

(+)(-)

(--)

Working as adjunct faculty at PSU & PCC

Settles in area with few walking

options

Becomes caregiver for

elderly mother

Uses bus time to rest and nap

(+)

FU

NC

TIO

NA

LP

ER

SO

NA

LS

OC

IAL

Chronology→Decision Diagram

Commuting between home, campus, downtown, mother• Increasing bus use; buys monthly pass• Utilizes shuttle bus to commute between campuses• Tries to reduce use of personal vehicle (trip chaining)• Occasional walking

Childhood Sept 2001 20031998

Rides Rose City transit with

mother

Commute tradeoff

Unable to find acceptable bus

options for visiting mother

(-)

Campus parking is expensive

Pressed for time

(--)

Caregiver for elderly mother

Moves back to Portland after long absence

Hired as adjunct

Parkinghassles at PSU

& PCC

Uses bus time for teaching prep

(--)

(+)(-)

(--)

Working as adjunct faculty at PSU & PCC

Settles in area with few walking

options

Becomes caregiver for

elderly mother

Uses bus time to rest and nap

(+)

FU

NC

TIO

NA

LP

ER

SO

NA

LS

OC

IAL

Decision Diagram→Sequence Coding

EVTS FSN AR RCL (bus) AON SCO RCL (car) AON SCO CLO MO MT CMT ACT (bus)

Sequence codesSequence codesare derived fromare derived from

use case analysisuse case analysis

Process ESN Page Episode Sequence

Selection 1/1 Adjunct at PSU and PCC EVTS FSN AR RCL (bus) AON SCO RCL (car) AON SCO CLO MO MT CMT ACT (bus) Evaluation 1/1 Car hassles EVTE CXT VAL ATT UON DIF Evaluation 1/1 Bus evaluation EVTE CXT VAL ATT UON DIF

Selection 1/1 Consulting in downtown PDX EVTS FSN AR RCL (bus) AON SCO RCL (car) AON SCO CLO OO CMT ACT (car) Maintenance 1/2 Purchases PP+ EVTM SUB

Evaluation 1/2 Evaluates PP+ EVTE CXT VAL ATT UON INT TRY 1ST DIFEvaluation 1/3 Interested in Flexcar EVTE CXT VAL ATT UON INT SI TRY

Maintenance 1/3 Subscribes to Flexcar EVTM SUB

Sequence Coding→Data Set

32 interviews yielded 283 sequences:75 Selection sequences

151 Evaluation sequences

57 Maintenance sequences

EVTS FSN AR RCL (bus) AON SCO RCL (car) AON SCO CLO MO MT CMT ACT (bus)

Dataset→Sequence Diagram

FrameSituational

Needs

ReframeSituational

Needs

ActionRequired

AssessOptionalNeeds

ClosureExceeded

NoOptions

MultipleOptions

OneOption

Quit

Can’tQuit

Committo Option

Procrastinate

RecallTechnology

Option

ScreenOption

PromptingMotive

MakeTradeoff

SensitiveMotive

TakeAction

StatusQuo

GetInfo

GetHelp

Framing Stage Screening Stage Choice Stage

FrameSituational

Needs

ReframeSituational

Needs

ActionRequired

AssessOptionalNeeds

ClosureExceeded

NoOptions

MultipleOptions

OneOption

Quit

Can’tQuit

Committo Option

Procrastinate

RecallTechnology

Option

ScreenOption

PromptingMotive

MakeTradeoff

SensitiveMotive

TakeAction

StatusQuo

GetInfo

GetHelp

FrameSituational

Needs

ReframeSituational

Needs

ActionRequired

AssessOptionalNeeds

ClosureExceeded

NoOptions

MultipleOptions

OneOption

Quit

Can’tQuit

Committo Option

Procrastinate

RecallTechnology

Option

ScreenOption

PromptingMotive

MakeTradeoff

SensitiveMotive

TakeAction

StatusQuo

GetInfo

GetHelp

Select Technology <<precondition>> usage situation

Prompting Motive : Motive <<postcondition>> technology chosen

Situational Need Optional NeedTechnology

[closure achieved]

[else]

PromptingMotive

InfoHelp

[else]

[action required]

[else] [limit exceeded]

[else]

[closure achieved]

RecallSituational Need

Situational Context

Recall Technology Technology

RecallOptional Need

Optional Need

Check forViolation

Check ifAction Required

Reject Technology

Technology Set

Check for Closure

Optional Need Set

Check for Closure

[closure achieved]

Check for Closure

[else]

AcquireHelp AcquireInfo

SensitizeMotive

MakeTradeoff

ChooseTechnology

ReframeContext

SituationalContext

Check toBegin Action

[technology set < 1] [technology set > 1]

[else]

[limit exceeded] [else]

[use][procrastinate]

[status quo]

Sequence Diagram→

Activity Diagram

From interviewFrom interviewto UML diagram:to UML diagram:

an unbrokenan unbrokentrail of evidencetrail of evidence

Bibliography

Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. The Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-710.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage.